Apple fails to get Australia to drop Epic Games lawsuit

in General Discussion edited December 2021
A temporary stay on the case of Epic Games vs Apple App Store in Australia has been overturned, and the trial will begin shortly.

Still from Epic Games
Still from Epic Games "Free Fortnite" video

The Australian case, expected to go to trial in November 2022, had been granted a temporary stay by the Federal Court in Sydney. The grounds for the stay were that Apple argued its contract with Epic Games stipulated that disputes must first be filed in California.

According to Yahoo News in Australia, that stay was overturned in July by a full bench of that court. Now the High Court in Canberra has refused Apple's request for special leave to appeal.

"Fortnite" game maker Epic, had argued that allowing Apple to dictate where a dispute could be heard, would have a "chilling effect" on competition in Australia. The court has agreed, saying that this jurisdiction contract clause "would offend" Australian public policy.

"[It involves] fundamental public interest issues in relation to conduct undertaken in an Australian sub-market," ruled the court.

As well as overruling Apple's appeal, the High Court has also awarded costs against the company.

Separately, Apple has been asking for a stay in the US for the App Store injunction imposed on it through the Epic Games vs Apple case held there in September 2021.

Read on AppleInsider


  • Reply 1 of 5
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,845member
    This place really is a hellhole of regulatory overreach.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    entropys said:
    This place really is a hellhole of regulatory overreach. this a fundamental debate on national legal independence vs international (or global village) law ?  

     Is this a fundamental issue for more important things like climate change, such as whether large polluting developed nations can avoid reducing emmissions at the expense of other countries...?

    Do we organize to protect regional or bioregional interests or globally for corporate profit externalizing various costs both patent and latent...?

    If nothing else will it be an interesting deliberation on the concept of 'stakeholder capitalism'...?
  • Reply 3 of 5
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Apple invents too much, makes too much money and is too important to the world.

    This is what it’s all about. Any other company would have such a laughable case thrown out.
  • Reply 4 of 5
    applguyapplguy Posts: 232member
    I could see this ruling if one of the companies was Australian but neither are. The precedence this makes is you just need to do business in the same country. If you don’t like the courts in your home country sue in Australia. Australia could become the international west Texas courts. 
  • Reply 5 of 5
    It doesn't matter that the companies are both American. Apple operates an Australian store for Australian customers with Australian pricing under Australia's taxation regime, and conducts some marketing in Australian media. There's nothing illegitimate about Australian courts using Australian law to rule on how this store operates. Having said that, I think that Epic's claims here are just as false and unsustainable as they are in the US case and I hope the case is adjudicated entirely in Apple's favour. There's nothing wrong with running a store, deciding what product you sell in your store, and the conditions under which you sell it, making a profit that is noticeably lower than other stores have made, so long as your store does not contravene consumer protection laws, and Apple's stores do not contravene those laws.
Sign In or Register to comment.